I wrote:
"So I guess this all means that I think we have to read Heidegger,
Heracltus and Gadamer equipped with a distinction between *biolence* (as
the naive perception of violence) and *violence*/essential violence, and
try and figure out which they're doing and thinking. Again, to be clear,
a Heideggerian thinking can not think *essential violence* properly
unless it *embarks on the question of violence* in certain ways."
No no no no! Big mistake. It is not a matter of reading with equipment, in
the first instance; that is to convert the question of violence and the
fundamental originality of the Other as Other into a more mechanized
framework. No, and I didn't get this clear in my last post: what is
important is not *that such and such a distinction is made* in nonviolence
(as opposed to naive nonviolence), but *that distinctions are made* and
that *thinking and questioning take place*. And Heidegger teaches us well
how to maintain ourselves in this more original space rather than falling
into beings from Being.
Tom B.
_____________________________________________________________________
"No civilized society can thrive upon victims whose humanity has been
permanently mutilated." -- Rabindranath Tagore
_____________________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---